I think you go right to the heart of the matter by talking about what the US can do to help itself. As the dust starts to settle and (one assumes) markets start to become more regulated once again, I wonder whether this will lead to greater protectionism and a reversal of globalisation?

On the face of it one would suspect this would be the case, but with the US now being bailed out by the Chinese (?? I think that’s where the bulk of the $700bn treasury bonds are likely to be sold) it would appear the opposite is about to happen.

Best wishes — Chris.

I think you go right to the heart of the matter by talking about what the US can do to help itself. As the dust starts to settle and (one assumes) markets start to become more regulated once again, I wonder whether this will lead to greater protectionism and a reversal of globalisation?

On the face of it one would suspect this would be the case, but with the US now being bailed out by the Chinese (?? I think that’s where the bulk of the $700bn treasury bonds are likely to be sold) it would appear the opposite is about to happen.

Best wishes — Chris.

Possibly we should focus within our own borders by encouraging production and use of resources within our lands while maintaining our consumer demand on environmental responsibility and accepting those costs. The mutually beneficial relationship of buyers and sellers needs to be reestablished as a focus to American trade, craftsmanship, and the creation and delivery of goods and services within our own borders.

The future of our economy is uncertain, and now I find it difficult to be concerned about how to raise the standard of living for the poorest 1/6th of the world. Let the pieces from our currently decimated system fall where they may, and hopefully our excesses and luxuries will be the most widespread sacrifice to our standard of living. We need to reinvest in our greatest assets; America’s human resources (on all levels), and America’s natural resources.

Possibly we should focus within our own borders by encouraging production and use of resources within our lands while maintaining our consumer demand on environmental responsibility and accepting those costs. The mutually beneficial relationship of buyers and sellers needs to be reestablished as a focus to American trade, craftsmanship, and the creation and delivery of goods and services within our own borders.

The future of our economy is uncertain, and now I find it difficult to be concerned about how to raise the standard of living for the poorest 1/6th of the world. Let the pieces from our currently decimated system fall where they may, and hopefully our excesses and luxuries will be the most widespread sacrifice to our standard of living. We need to reinvest in our greatest assets; America’s human resources (on all levels), and America’s natural resources.

For instance, in order to possess “An abundance of valuable material possessions” you have to be able to afford these items. By definition though, they would not be valuable or considered luxuries if everyone could afford them. Consider TVs or cars: once the preserve of the wealthy they are now so commonplace they’re almost considered essential. Other “stuff” is now considered valuable luxuries, beyond the reach of you and I but affordable for the wealthy.

If too many peoples’ salaries outpace your own, you will not be able to afford the items you once could because prices of these valuable possessions will follow their salaries, not stay with your own. Similarly, teachers were once a well paid profession (in the UK, anyhow) but decades of salary erosion means they often cannot a mortgage in the community within which they teach.

I fully accept that the quest to enable people to live healthy and fulfilling lives free of oppression, curable desise and malnutrition and fully agree with you that this is a truly noble endeavour. I simply wish to point out that everyone in the world cannot own “an abundance of valuable material possessions” .. it is quite simply a contradiction in terms.

All Best Wishes — Chris.

For instance, in order to possess “An abundance of valuable material possessions” you have to be able to afford these items. By definition though, they would not be valuable or considered luxuries if everyone could afford them. Consider TVs or cars: once the preserve of the wealthy they are now so commonplace they’re almost considered essential. Other “stuff” is now considered valuable luxuries, beyond the reach of you and I but affordable for the wealthy.

If too many peoples’ salaries outpace your own, you will not be able to afford the items you once could because prices of these valuable possessions will follow their salaries, not stay with your own. Similarly, teachers were once a well paid profession (in the UK, anyhow) but decades of salary erosion means they often cannot a mortgage in the community within which they teach.

I fully accept that the quest to enable people to live healthy and fulfilling lives free of oppression, curable desise and malnutrition and fully agree with you that this is a truly noble endeavour. I simply wish to point out that everyone in the world cannot own “an abundance of valuable material possessions” .. it is quite simply a contradiction in terms.

All Best Wishes — Chris.

America has certainly created a great deal of wealth in the past decades as the concept of hunger or homelessness has increasingly become a distant, inconceivable concept to the vast majority of it’s citizens. If my neighbors or fellow citizen’s salary increases outpace my own, that in no way makes me less wealthy (so long as my salary increase outpaces inflation). In fact, that places the tax burden more on them, than I. For those reasons, I feel that “bring wealth to everyone” is a noble, and achievable goal for current economic system; not a contradiction in terms.

America has certainly created a great deal of wealth in the past decades as the concept of hunger or homelessness has increasingly become a distant, inconceivable concept to the vast majority of it’s citizens. If my neighbors or fellow citizen’s salary increases outpace my own, that in no way makes me less wealthy (so long as my salary increase outpaces inflation). In fact, that places the tax burden more on them, than I. For those reasons, I feel that “bring wealth to everyone” is a noble, and achievable goal for current economic system; not a contradiction in terms.